However, one big concern that hasn't yet been addressed is the impact of the residual benefits of having HLS on your resume, way down the road. I've heard many times that after your first job, your school doesn't matter too much. But I imagine this doesn't apply (as much) to HLS graduates.

Correct. H is the gift that keeps on giving. While the shine should revert to the mean over time, it does not. To me, H is with the $ delta.

Any actual data for this? Something showing that, on average and in terms of career outcomes, H is worth the $210K in debt, accumulated interest, and the gains unrealized due to being unable to invest some or all of that money?

I mean, I wish this were true, because if it were true for HLS, then it would be true for my school. But this really smells like nothing more than ignorant 0L prestige obsession.

It's a false correlation issue, I think. Federal clerkships, not school name, are what stand out in your career in law for a long time, according to what I've been told. They carry the height of prestige. Where you go to school will fade a lot more quickly than who you clerked for and what circuit it was on (and if its SCOTUS, then that will last forever). So this could imply that since HYS have higher clerkship numbers, their name and brand carry you farther via greater opportunity at these clerkships. As noted, Chicago has 3-4% less clerks than H. This is your long term "residual benefit", IMO. Yale, of course, has a massive "prestige" benefit by this false correlation via its dominating clerkship numbers.

If you go directly to work for THE SAME firm from Harvard or Chicago, "down the road", not much difference to speak of.

edit: this is just one proposition, not a definitive claim that this is necessarily the only cause accounting for the phenomenon

Ti Malice wrote: Any actual data for this? Something showing that, on average and in terms of career outcomes, H is worth the $210K in debt, accumulated interest, and the gains unrealized due to being unable to invest some or all of that money?

I mean, I wish this were true, because if it were true for HLS, then it would be true for my school. But this really smells like nothing more than ignorant 0L prestige obsession.

Anyone who gets Biglaw easily makes back $250k plus five-figure opportunity cost when the time frame is long enough--I think fifteen years pretty much covers all possible permutations, assuming a five-year lateral at $100k-140k. The higher the opportunity cost, the longer it takes a JD to become net-positive.

Possible reasons why Harvard would pay out more, just financially, than Chicago (don't hold any statement as fact, as each claim in the following is purely speculation or merely a possibility):

1. Appellate and SCOTUS clerkship holders are more likely to get Biglaw in the first place, they're more likely to make partner, and they're more likely to have lucrative post-Biglaw careers than those without clerkships, ceteris paribus.

2. Harvard grads are more likely to get hired by Wachtell, ceteris paribus.

3. Harvard grads are more likely to have stronger exit options even after previous job performance is considered, ceterius paribus (related to 1)

4. A Harvard grad is more likely make partner than a Chicago grad of equal performance in a given firm, ceterius paribus.

5. A Harvard grad is more likely to have his or her choice of market-wage Biglaw firm, making it more likely they enjoy their job, making them more likely to succeed, making them more likely to either make partner or have great exit options.

To me, 1 makes sense and affects a clerkship difference of 3-4 percentish plus the marginal difference of better-quality federal clerkships (SCOTUS over appellates, appellates over districts). We know 2 to be true but it will only affects a handful of grads each year. 3 seems less likely, assuming job performance is the main determinant of exit options, but the more your firm prestige matters, the bigger a difference it is for Harvard. Old data seemed to suggest 4 was true, but only very marginally, and probably colinear with a bunch of other factors, and won't affect most people anyway. 5 is probably false, but again this goes along with the higher-ranked firm = better exact options notion, whose truth would be associated with a Harvard advantage.

These differences could lead you to conceivably pick Harvard over, say, $90k at UChi. But $150k is too much money to chase such a marginal advantage, IMO.

BruceWayne wrote:I'm usually strongly anti debt. But if you're trying to work at a firm in Texas or the South it's definitely worth the extra money to go to Harvard. I don't think a lot of people realize how hard it is to get a firm job outside of NYC or outside of the school's home market for a non HYS school. You really don't have a good shot at a firm job in Texas or in the South coming from a non HYS top 14 with below median grades.

What the heck? Thought Texas was an easy market to get from a t14 with ties based on everything I've read up until this point

Ti Malice wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

However, one big concern that hasn't yet been addressed is the impact of the residual benefits of having HLS on your resume, way down the road. I've heard many times that after your first job, your school doesn't matter too much. But I imagine this doesn't apply (as much) to HLS graduates.

Correct. H is the gift that keeps on giving. While the shine should revert to the mean over time, it does not. To me, H is with the $ delta.

Any actual data for this? Something showing that, on average and in terms of career outcomes, H is worth the $210K in debt, accumulated interest, and the gains unrealized due to being unable to invest some or all of that money?

I mean, I wish this were true, because if it were true for HLS, then it would be true for my school. But this really smells like nothing more than ignorant 0L prestige obsession.

The only real data I've ever seen was that UVA pre-ITE study which I would be shocked HLS dramatically outpaces because the numbers were so ridiculously high...

The rest is as said, conjecture. There's also that shit payscale data, but it's so bad, no point in analyzing it.

Wow, Chicago is killing it in Biglaw outcomes. That data actually undermines points 1 and 5, too. Maybe also number 3.

Dubious that there would be actual causation between clerking and partnership in a firm. That year or two of clerking could be spent building relationships in a firm, either with partners or with potential clients. It is a nice resume credential, but still not a substitute for what one needs to be a money-making asset to a firm. This would suggest the same thing re networking potential of the Harvard name, too. People with the Chicago name on their underpants would appear to be doing better at bringing in business, if partnership also signals having a good book of clients.

sinfiery wrote:I think it is effected by self selection to a certain degree in that top HLS grads end up working in academia/prestigious PI/gov more than UChi, but yeah, definitely a great showing for UChi.

Well, per capita, Chicago has about a 25% advantage over Harvard in Partners in Big Firms.

First, I don't think academia makes a significant enough number to affect anything. I suppose that gov or PI could be a substantial number, but it would require assuming self-selection of 25% more Harvard grads than Chicago grads, once in firms, who were partnership-bound, leaving. That's a pretty big assumption. Noteably, that would require assuming that partnership-bound UChicago grads never self-select out of partnership for academia, PI, or government, which we know isn't true.

Intuitively, though, I understand the instinct to assume that there is an explanation for it, and there likely is. The thing is, these two schools are in the very elite echelon, and there isn't any reason to think that the quality of the graduates would be so different between them that, long term and on average, they don't have roughly equivalent success. To a certain extent, the national jurist statistics confirm that by showing a long term outcome significantly in favor of Chicago. I mean, if it showed them dead even, then people would nonetheless assume a huge advantage to Harvard because of the self-selection argument.

Take it from someone who made the other decision: take CCN with $$$ over HYS with $.

If you want biglaw, you're almost as likely to get it from CCN as from HYS. You're starting adult life now, so you need to start thinking about things like having a family, buying a house, and planning for retirement. Don't delay your life by several years just so you can have a slightly better school on your resume. Beyond your first job, there's basically no evidence that having gone to HYS helps you more than having gone to CCN. People who make hiring decisions are not your parents. What impresses them is your ability to contribute to the bottom line, not the H-bomb. I'm one year into law school and while I'm fortunate to be where I am, I would've been in an even better position had I gone to CCN on pace to graduate with far less debt. As it is, if I get no-offered or laid off early on in my career, I'm in deep financial trouble. The vast majority of people who enter biglaw leave within a few years. I don't care if your school has 100% employment rate; statistically, you're gone in a few years. Don't assume you're special.

I know this doesn't apply to you, Jaqen, but here it is: If you don't want biglaw, you're probably still going into biglaw. Look into the annoying paperwork and restrictions involved in your school's LRAP (that your school won't tell you about); talk to your biglaw friends who are getting wined and dined at their summer associate positions and (because they're annoying law students) can't shut up about them; consider the lack of job security (most PI people don't get their jobs until after graduation, if at all), financial uncertainty, and bad credit you'll be facing as a young adult trying to start a family. Are you sure you still don't want biglaw? When the law school herd mentality catches up with you, will you really be among the few who stick to the PI path? If you think you're going into government or academia, god help you because you're almost definitely wrong. And even if you do stay away from biglaw, you're still at the mercy of your school's LRAP program. HYS probably won't eliminate LRAP (though you can never be sure), but they are chipping away and will chip away at their programs. Don't make a poor financial decision because you're starry-eyed.

If you may want to clerk, consider the fact that the prestigious clerkships are difficult to get even for the best students, even at HYS. Yes, you'll have a better shot at them coming out of HYS, but if you don't have good grades (yes, grades, even at HYS), the clerk who reads your application won't even give it a second glance before she recycles it. If you want any old clerkship, do you really need HYS? Is it worth the debt?

And while this wasn't my situation, I know some people choose HYS over CCN with $$$ because their parents want them to choose HYS and are willing to pay for it. I don't want to sound crass, but once your parents are gone, you're probably getting their money. Think very carefully before you let them waste their (and eventually your) money because they're starry-eyed.

Thank you so much, again, to everyone who contributed. While I was leaning Chicago from the beginning, TLS has been vital in helping me become confident in/comfortable with my decision even as everyone I know irl was pushing Harvard.

Thank you so much, again, to everyone who contributed. While I was leaning Chicago from the beginning, TLS has been vital in helping me become confident in/comfortable with my decision even as everyone I know irl was pushing Harvard.

Congratulations! This is the right call. You will be so happy coming out of school with low debt and an amazing job. Good luck!

Thank you so much, again, to everyone who contributed. While I was leaning Chicago from the beginning, TLS has been vital in helping me become confident in/comfortable with my decision even as everyone I know irl was pushing Harvard.

Thank you so much, again, to everyone who contributed. While I was leaning Chicago from the beginning, TLS has been vital in helping me become confident in/comfortable with my decision even as everyone I know irl was pushing Harvard.

+1000That post should be in every choosing Harvard over CCN with money thread. I remember losing several arguments with people who turned down Ruby or Hamilton for Harvard just because of the Harvard name.

Good decision OP. Good luck in Chicago. Somehow I have a feeling that even though you are young you are going to do well in school.

While I'm at it, let me address a few residual arguments on BOTH SIDES.

Prestige of the full scholarshipHaving the Rubenstein/Hamilton/RTK on your resume won't distinguish you much. First, the awards only indicate the level of pre-law school achievement, and usually only your stats (LSAT/GPA) at that. Doing well in undergrad and on the LSAT just won't impress people who matter. What matters are your law school grades, networking, and employable skills. Second, I have heard rumors that some partners actually seek out candidates who come from poor backgrounds, whose backs are against the wall, and who have the grit to do what it takes to endure biglaw's long, thankless hours. Some big firms are so unpleasant to work for that a full-tuition scholarship might actually be seen as a flight risk--even if you don't see it that way. On the other hand, one HYS student actually tried to convince admits to turn down T14 full scholarships on egalitarian grounds: no one should be better than anyone else! Admirable goal, but antithetical to the sad reality of law. Do not sacrifice your own financial well-being so you can be on the same playing field as your classmates who will not hesitate to take any advantage they can over you.

Prestige of turning down HYSMost people say this in jest, but since this is law school some of you might actually need to be told this in all seriousness: no one cares if you turned down HYS. In fact, you should probably avoid mentioning that you did.

Non-financial benefits of the full scholarshipThe Hamilton matches you with a faculty mentor who specializes in your area of interest. This consists of a brief email conversation that you could turn into a long-term relationship, but keep in mind that anyone can create these relationships just by emailing a professor. You don't need a scholarship to network with a professor. It's already very easy.

The Rubenstein also gives you networking opportunities, including meeting up with Mr. Rubenstein himself for dinner. Cool opportunity, but again, not unique. You will have chances to meet with fancy people at HYS, trust me.

The RTK kind of (not sure how strict) requires you to work in the public interest after graduation, which makes the RTK nearly redundant with LRAP (not completely because of the headaches and restrictions associated with LRAPs that I discuss above). I've heard that the school will devote extra resources to help you find a job in what's certainly a tough market for PI jobs, which is very nice. I'm not sure how much, though, and I don't really buy the argument that having unemployed RTKs makes the program look bad. Law schools are very good at sweeping unemployed graduates under the rug and blaming students for their failure to secure employment. NYU is not suddenly going to change its attitude because you're an RTK. As for the other full scholarship programs at NYU, I don't have much information.

Dual degreesAll schools pretend to be interdisciplinary, but some schools allow more cross-registration and double crediting than others. If you're doing a JD-PhD or other program that will fund both degrees, that might be a good reason to turn down money elsewhere, but only if you're sure you want to do the JD-PhD, and if the JD-PhD is a good idea in the first place. Be careful not to make yourself overqualified or brand yourself as an academic type if you're not going into academia. Check with the PhD department, too--even if the law school allows dual degrees, the other department might make things difficult.

Unprofessional or sketchy admissions practicesI was very turned off by one school that tried to pressure me into accepting their scholarship before I received a an admissions decision or financial aid decision from other schools. What annoyed me the most was that the admissions officer pretended to be concerned about fairness to other admits--but really, who cares when financial aid gives me more money? I thought there were a set number of scholarships to give out each year, so why do I need to make a decision so early in my application cycle? I tried not to let this affect my decision, but the incident convinced me that I was right to always be skeptical of admissions office who claim to be acting in my best interests.

Student body qualityI'm only familiar with my school, but the difference is probably negligible.

Student cultureThis is actually a good point, but it cuts both ways. While students at every school start out with admirable goals of going into PI, HYS students are actually more likely to stick to that path. (NYU also has low PI attrition.) I like my PI friends, so I think this is a good thing. What's not so good is that HYS also has higher clerkship stats. For many students this is good (but again, see discussion above), but for someone like me who doesn't care about clerkships, clerkship gunners are just annoying. At least people going straight into biglaw stop gunning after OCI. There are delusional SCOTUS/POTUS-wannabes at every school, but they're more numerous at HYS because they've somehow convinced themselves that their expectations are realistic.